My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092607
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 092607
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:31:27 PM
Creation date
10/18/2007 4:32:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/26/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
process. In light of the issue that a development plan would be established for PUDs, <br />staff typically examined every aspect and concept that would be projected forward on <br />that site and added that staff worked very hard to mitigate concerns by the neighbors. <br />She noted that this project was a major modification because there was controversy <br />between the landowner and a neighbor and that it was being processed by the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker explained that a PUD does not necessarily have to be multiple parcels; it may <br />be one home site. She continued that a minor modification to a PUD generally comprised <br />small changes requested by an individual, such as setbacks and encroachments into <br />setbacks, and is similar to variances in straight-zoned properties. A minor modification <br />would undergo a staff-level process, and the action taken would be reported in the <br />Actions of the Zoning Administrator report to the Planning Commission and the City <br />Council. Both the Commission and the Council have the authority to remove the item <br />from the Actions of the Zoning Administrator report for discussion and/or appeal, which <br />would then bring back the item as a major modification, first before the Planning <br />Commission, then the Council. A minor modification may also become a major <br />modification if even one neighbor contested it. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox requested several items including a copy of the building permit for the <br />wall when this item is heard by the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker noted that the <br />discussion of a project that will be heard at a future Commission agenda was <br />inappropriate under Matters Initiated by Commission Members; however, she confirmed <br />that staff would provide a complete report and packet when this item comes before the <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson thanked Ms. Decker for a very good explanation of major and <br />minor modifications. <br /> <br />b.Actions of the City Council <br /> <br /> <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br /> <br />Actions of the Zoning Administrator <br />c. <br /> <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br /> <br />9. COMMUNICATIONS <br /> <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br /> <br />10. REFERRALS <br /> <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 2007 Page 19 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.